Products Liability — NextGen Bar practice question

A bottling company fills several million glass soda bottles at its plant each week. Its bottle design is sound and its process is well run, so virtually every bottle is fine. One bottle, however, leaves the plant carrying a hairline crack caused by a stray flaw in the glass. A customer buys that bottle at a market, and when he takes an ordinary sip the bottle suddenly fractures in his hand and a shard cuts his lip. He sues the bottling company in strict products liability.

Which type of defect best describes the flaw the customer should assert?

Option A. Incorrect answer. A design defect, because glass bottles are inherently dangerous to consumers.
Option B. Correct answer. A manufacturing defect, because this bottle departed from the maker's intended design.Correct
Option C. Incorrect answer. A failure-to-warn defect, because the bottler gave no warning about cracks.
Option D. Incorrect answer. No defect, because nearly every other bottle left the plant in perfect condition.

Why

A manufacturing defect exists when a single unit departs from its own intended design or from the other identical units on the line — one bad product among thousands of good ones. The cracked bottle deviated from the maker's specifications, so it carries a manufacturing defect and supports strict liability even though the design and process were sound (B). A design defect (A) would condemn the entire product line as unreasonably dangerous, but the design here was fine — only this unit was flawed. A failure-to-warn claim (C) misfits: a hidden crack is a production flaw, not a known danger a warning could cure. D inverts the rule — the fact that the other bottles were perfect is exactly what proves this one deviated; strict liability turns on this unit, not the batch average.

Why